HDW900 vs. Varicam

[Landon D. Parks]

I'm sure it's been brought up on here before, but lets bring it back:

 

Which camera to choose for overall best picture quality:

Sony HDW-F900

-or-

Varicam

?

 

I know the Varicam has like 1/2 the pixels of HDW, but yet I hear something about the Varicam having more "Color Space" or something like that.

 

Tis' the question, anyone have the answer?

Edited March 1, 2005 by Landon D. Parks

[David Mullen ASC]

Well, the Varicam recording definitely has half the pixel resolution (about a 1MP frame versus a 2MP one). The HDCAM and DVCPROHD format are both fairly compressed.

 

The DVCPROHD recording is 4:2:2 while the HDCAM recording is slightly worse than that, 3:1:1. But honestly, that's pretty subtle in most cases -- it's sort of content dependent, just like when compression artifacts are visible.

 

Anyway, since most of my HD work is intended for projection, whether it actually happens or not, I've avoided 720P simply because I think 1080P is borderline acceptable in resolution. However, if I were shooting HD for television, I'd certainly consider 720P. Or if I were doing an indie film where the pros of the Varicam (size, weight, and multiple frame rates) suited certain production needs and thus outweighed the lower resolution. However, for me, the difference between 4:2:2 versus 3:1:1 isn't compelling enough to forget the difference between 1MP versus 2MP per frame.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> DVCPROHD recording is 4:2:2 while the HDCAM recording is slightly worse than that, 3:1:1

 

You know what, actually it isn't, by the time you get around to comparing final frames.

 

HDCAM records 1440x1080 at 3:1:1, for 480 colour samples per line.

DVCPRO-100 records 960x720 at 4:2:2, for.... 480 colour samples per line.

 

DVCPRO-100 only has higher colour resolution per luminance pixel (which is of course exactly what the ratios are all about). Overall, given the same physical size veiwed frame, it has exactly the same colour resolution.

 

Phil

[David Cox]

To add my twopenneth,

 

Phil is quite correct about the color samples, but if the question relates to a project destined for the big screen I would agree with David. The extra horizontal "lines" of resolution will create an apparently sharper image for larger projection, provided of course that you print to a film stock and format that makes the most of it.

 

Interestingly, we routinely color grade 4:4:4, 4:2:2 and 3:1:1 HD material and surprisingly, there is very little difference in the limits of what you can achieve in grading between the formats. Mathematically, 4:4:4 should have loads more shades to play with than 3:1:1, but optically it doesn't appear to have too many issues (except for blue / green screen shoots).

 

However, we have had excellent results with the Varicam and the variable frame rate thing is a neat trick if you need it.

 

David Cox

Managing Director

Baraka Post Production Ltd

London

baraka.co.uk

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

Careful; there's no particular reason 4:4:4 should resolve more discrete colours than any subsampled format - they should just be higher-resolution.

 

Phil

[Landon D. Parks]

Cant you change the frame rate on the F900 to? or is it just one of those 50i, 60i, 24p deals?

 

I hear you can crank the Varicam up to 60FPS. Will this add more compression than 24FPS?

[David Mullen ASC]

Cant you change the frame rate on the F900 to? or is it just one of those 50i, 60i, 24p deals?

 

I hear you can crank the Varicam up to 60FPS. Will this add more compression than 24FPS?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The F900 only does: 23.98P, 24P, 25P, 29.97P, 30P, 50i, 59.94i, 60i

 

The Varicam always records everything at 60P, just adding redundant frames if you shoot at any rate below 60, so the compression and data rate are constant.

 

When I've needed slow-motion on the F900, I've switched to 60i capture and then in post, had it converted from 60 fields to 60 frames. You lose some vertical resolution but it's pretty hard to spot considering how slo-mo is used most of the time (in the middle of an action film, for example.)

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

I'm not sure how Varicam really works.

 

It does frame rates down to 4fps, and those slow rates do appear to have correct long exposure times, so clearly it is actually modifying the way the CCD works. As you change rate, small exposure variations are visible very briefly, presumably as the camera sets up the CCD assembly.

 

So we know it records at 60p, but it doesn't necessarily shoot at 60p.

 

Phil

[David Mullen ASC]

Hi,

 

I'm not sure how Varicam really works.

 

It does frame rates down to 4fps, and those slow rates do appear to have correct long exposure times, so clearly it is actually modifying the way the CCD works. As you change rate, small exposure variations are visible very briefly, presumably as the camera sets up the CCD assembly.

 

So we know it records at 60p, but it doesn't necessarily shoot at 60p.

 

Phil

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It captures at the rate selected and shutter speed selected, then adds redundant frames to the recording to add up to 60, flagging the extra frames so they can be eliminated later.

[Micah Ellars]

The debate between these two cameras continues,

 

It would be ineteresting to hear what is thought of the difference between them other than the ammount of pixels they can throw up on the screen. I have come to understand the the HDcam is much more technically involved and tends to be more difficult to pick up on than the Vericam. I wander how much of an issue this is? Maybe someone here has more information about this difference? Because for someone who has never used either one I would be most interested in knowing technical issues that could emerge due to inexperience with either camera.

 

I was told from someones first hand experience that the Vericam was much more user friendly and that they felt they did not need a technician around to trouble shoot.

 

So any opinions on this? Or does someone else see their operation as too similar to change ones preference?

Edited March 15, 2005 by Film_Questions

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

I don't really understand what you're asking. It's a video camera, give or take menu options they're all doing more or less the same thing. I find the idea of having a technician just to look after a video camera preposterous.

 

Phil

[Micah Ellars]

Hi,

 

I don't really understand what you're asking. It's a video camera, give or take menu options they're all doing more or less the same thing. I find the idea of having a technician just to look after a video camera preposterous.

 

Phil

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Phil,

 

I was just wandering if there were any other major differences, I only asked to see if anyone had any input. Is it really proposterous to suggest that during production a camera tech be available?

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> Is it really proposterous to suggest that during production a camera tech be available?

 

If it's someone whose sole job is to look after the fact that it isn't a film camera and the crew isn't really competent to work for it, then yes, it's preposterous.

 

Phil

[Maurizio Tiella]

Well I also was investigating the pros and cons of the SONY HDW-F900 and of the Panasonic AJ-HDC27F, but now I found that the pANASONIC is available in the newer model AK-HC931 which has 1920x1080p.

Has anyone tested that model and an output to film?

I should be testing it next monday outfitted with Digi Primes and the go the whole way to D5 and then to 35mm film print.

I had personally found the AJ-HDC27F very pleasing and with rich texture, but I was advised by the camera technician at the rental company not to go the extra effort to test the result of printing to 35mm and wait to test the 931.

 

I will let you know soon once I see the print.

 

:rolleyes:

[Robert Sanders]

The AK-HC931 is a 720P and 1080i camera. It does not do 1080P.

 

Panasonic Website

[Maurizio Tiella]

The AK-HC931 is a 720P and 1080i camera.  It does not do 1080P.

 

Panasonic Website

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Thank you very much for the information.

Does Panasonic make a 108p HD cam?

 

maurizio tiella

[Markus Rave]

I did a workshop 4 weeks ago to get my hands on the Varicam. Panasonic does a neat trick and flattens the gamma curve especially in the highlights. This feature is called film and it is possible to modify the HDW900´s gamma curve in this way. Panasonic has a special designed monitor which allows to view the recorded image with the corrected gamma. This item is neccessary indeed since the viewfinder shows a very flat picture without any contrast that scared me to death whithout the monitor. If you want to use the film gamma in postproduction you need a deconverter before capturing the data. In a way it is like Thomson´s Viper not comparing quality issues. The Panasonic consultant assured us that we could work like the Varicam was a filmcamera and use our meters. I am not sure if this is true and would insist to have a monitor on set.

I have shot most of my HD pictures using the HDW900. Neither the SFX guy or me have noticed any problems due to the color resolution with it. If I had to make a choice I would consider buying the Sony before the Varicam. The reason is not only that I am used more to the Sony but it has the better compression ratio and this is an issue with extensive postproduction. Also 1080i and p are superior to 780p. A personal issue is that I don´t trust the small tape format Panasonic uses :)

 

Markus